The kernel's code of conflict
The kernel's code of conflict
Posted Mar 13, 2015 13:33 UTC (Fri) by mstsxfx (subscriber, #41804)In reply to: The kernel's code of conflict by neilbrown
Parent article: The kernel's code of conflict
> patch being at all useful. It is not like code that can - to some extent -
> be objectively measured. You'd end up with endless bike-shedding and
> little progress.
Yes this is a topic with a high flamewars potential. But that alone is not a reason for doing things behind the scenes IMO. Once there would be a sufficient Acked-bys then the patch would be justified for merging. Besides that any NAK would have to be justified properly as well ("I do not think this would help" argument doesn't fall into that category).
It would be quite natural to ask whether all changes to this document are going to be handled in the same way because by the flmatory nature will not change most probably.
> The non-TAB individuals who gave their 'Acked-by', didn't get to discuss
> or revise the wording. All we got was the opportunity to publicly
> support the TAB in this initiative
TAB is a technical advisory AFAIK and my perception is that issues mentioned by the document are not technical by definition.